Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
Post up the source/ref for your "400 year" claim and let's see if it is different than the one I gave.
I did post it, it was the same one you posted. I get all my climate information from you... that is the only way to ensure it is accurate and meets the appropriate standards. You posted, then I reposted... then you reposted my repost. Here it is again, in case you missed it:
http://news.msn.com/in-depth/scientists-past-california-droughts-have-lasted-200-years
And you are actually a college professor?
Seriously...
For the 3rd time, no I am not a college professor. I'll be happy to remind you again in another page or so when you ask for the 4th time.
Have you asked for that PhD of yours yet? I'm guessing Stanford or MIT would be honored to give you several just for asking.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
You do have a source/ref do you not???
Chef Sucks Teat of Scientism. Demands Citation of Sources. Peer Review at Eleven.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew 2012).
Contributing to this 'consensus gap' are campaigns designed to confuse the public about the level of agreement among climate scientists. In 1991, Western Fuels Association conducted a $510 000 campaign whose primary goal was to 'reposition global warming as theory (not fact)'. A key strategy involved constructing the impression of active scientific debate using dissenting scientists as spokesmen (Oreskes 2010). The situation is exacerbated by media treatment of the climate issue, where the normative practice of providing opposing sides with equal attention has allowed a vocal minority to have their views amplified (Boykoff and Boykoff 2004). While there are indications that the situation has improved in the UK and USA prestige press (Boykoff 2007), the UK tabloid press showed no indication of improvement from 2000 to 2006 (Boykoff and Mansfield 2008).
The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is '...on the point of collapse' (Oddie 2012) while '...the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year' (Allègre et al 2012). A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion. The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.
+1 Wade.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
"Scientific consensus", I think has been proven to be biased. In the realm of AGW, the science has rotted by bias. It is not to be trusted anymore.
So what remains? The facts, and reality.
The planet and the solar system appear to be in flux. They appear to be coming to a cooling phase.
Look at solar cycles. You don't have to be a scientist to extrapolate the past cycles and mirror them to current ones.
It's the Sun, stupid.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
"It's the Sun,stupid"
Thanks for that.
Now how's about posting a peer reviewed paper or study confirming that.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
depends on your definition of propaganda...
or your definition of bad.
Eh sketchy?
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
Now how's about posting a peer reviewed paper or study confirming that.
You wouldn't believe it if I provided it, would you?
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
I can't believe you guys are still clinging to this crap. They were wrong.
Climate change is the new thing, get on-board.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
I would consider their evidence.
Just good luck finding a peer reviewed paper stating that recent warming,like the warming that has been discussed to end here on this thread,IS being caused by solar cycles.
I would look at it,and so would more than a few here.
If their conclusions had found any facts of significance,Do you believe we would have already heard of it?
And I am not clinging to anything but solid science.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
"Among papers expressing a position on AGW,an overwhelming percentage endorses the scientific consensus on AGW."
I just took the numbers out of your way,Sketch.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
So it's 32.6 vs 1.
Sounds like an overwhelming consensus to me.
Edit: previous calcs wrong.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
Yeah but it's an angry .1%...
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
haha... science being evaluated on the basis of whether or not they "endorse" something or "express an opinion" on something. What next, religion being evaluated on quantitative evidence? Or sports matches being decided based on which team endorses which products?
99.9% of fuking idiots don't know the first thing about science.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
99.9% of fuking idiots don't know the first thing about science.
It's as#@&%es like yourself who've destroyed science. You failed to look at obvious common denominators. Instead you focus on what you WANT to be the genesis of the issue.
Do you even consider the solar effect in our world?
People like you have ruined science, true science.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
checking in....
how's the evening trolling entertainment, chief?
took the Norton out today, thought of you riding out there in Cal maybe today?
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
blurring, you are the worst of the worst. You haven't even read my research yet you somehow have an opinion of it and think you know everything about it... just like the rest of the scientific illiterate fukwads. I guarantee you wouldn't understand a bit of it.
And yes, in fact, I have considered the "solar effects in our world." I have a whole chapter in which I use hourly shortwave and long wave radiation data as components in an ODE to define my upper thermal boundary condition.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!